[urbanrealtor]

[quote=walterwhite]Does good taste matter?[/quote]

Says the public defender to the Realtor.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sunny88]That guy is looking through court documents to prey on his victims. And he thinks he’s smart….[/quote]
Generally quitclaims don’t go to court.
Much cheaper to just go through the recorder’s office.

Funny thing.
Title rep came in the other day.
He is setting me up to get a marketing presentation from a firm that advises when any property related events take place in a designated area.

For example:
If I wanted to know when NOD’s got filed on any of my neighbors it would kick out an email to me or advise me via a dashboard.

In passing, he mentioned it could tell me when a divorce was happening (presumably via the quitclaim record).

I am terribly curious to see this presentation.

I will let you know how it goes and if this is the same (or a similar) marketing program to the one described above.

If so, I will solicit ideas for the most tasteless marketing pieces possible.

[urbanrealtor]

I have a 60 day old baby and am the proprietor of a new business in a depressed market segment (real estate).

So yes, I am pretty much always tired when I write.

All I was saying is that I think sweeping statements as to this guy’s character is an over statement.
He may very well be a jerk but clumsy and careless marketing does not convince me of that.

A few years ago, several agents in my office (back when it was a different company) put together the REPO EXPRESS TOUR (I lobbied to call it “REO Speedwagon but that was apparently taken).
We piled clients in a bus and showed them like 5 REO’s on a Sunday morning.
This was just before “deals on the bus”, and several others started.
It fell apart and really annoyed a lot of people.
I think I was the only one to ever close any deals off of that particular stunt.

The upshot was that the broker spent a lot of money, wasted a lot of time, and caused a lot of people to dislike her and the firm.

Whether or not she was a jerk is debatable but she had no ill intent other than getting bank-owned houses sold.

My point is this:
Its easy to have a tin ear as a small business owner doing one’s own marketing.
Its very easy to piss people off without meaning to.
I suspect this guy’s primary liability is just tone-deafness (that and having gone to BYU).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CDMA ENG]I’ll say it.

He is a F$@King jerk.

Think about the shit this asshole has caused.

Things are bad out there for a lot of ppl (financial stress, whatever) and I am sure he has placed one of these letters into the mailbox of a couple who was having problems. Then one spouse starts thinking the other one has seen a lawyer and before you know it… Self-fulfilling prophecy…

Hope a car runs over his foot.

CE[/quote]
I that is a bit harsh but then again, you can’t even say Fuck, so clearly we don’t agree on everything.
And I do believe reasonable people can disagree.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]I think it is desperation. I sold a house a couple of year’s ago and many realtors called even though we specified no agents. It was a FSBO. Anyway, it sold fast (one week). The buyer knew what they wanted and was qualified with a loan from the credit union. We then pulled the ad, but I received calls from agents for over a year. Not every day, but steady, about once a month. This was in early 2009. I am thinking things have gotten worse and this fellow is using a targeted group to market to. I think his letter and approach are tacky, but I am thinking there are some hungry realtors out there.[/quote]

You are right that there are some hungry Realtors out there.
I know because I am one.
My business cash flows positive and does well but anyone who is not super-motivated these days generally isn’t doing much business.

That being said, it feels good to not be desperate.

As far as not using Realtors:

On the seller side:
Avoiding paying commissions is a good idea if you can swing it.
HOWEVER, if you sold in a week as a FSBO, you probably did not get full market value.
That’s just the reality of today’s market.
But I put my money where my mouth is.
If you want, we will get a past appraisal done by Todd Lackner (whose integrity is pretty much beyond reproach) and if I am right, you pay for it and if I am wrong I will pay for it.
I am betting you sold at a discount.
PM me.

On the buyer side:
You are well within your rights to not pay a buyer-side commission to an agent.
You are not within your rights to deny a buyer the right to whatever consultation or representation they want.

If agents are bugging you though, just get their info and report them to the do-not-call authorities.

A few hundred bucks will be a great disincentive.

Better yet, get their info and offer to not report them for $300 each.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=kcal09]His approach is disgusting and inappropriate because quit claim deeds are not only being issued for divorces but for many other reasons as well. I would never trust a realtor who uses this kind of approach as it shows that he is inexperienced, not caring and desperate.[/quote]
I don’t think I would have those specific criticisms but I would agree that he clearly is not working with good information. That alone would give me pause.

[urbanrealtor]

CDPE is a designation that is generally considered reputable (though not NAR or CAR affiliated).

I think its kind of worthless but lots of folks swear by those classes.

As far as the original thing of vulture-marketing:

I find this distasteful and would not do it.
That being said, when my mom died, we used a caterer because they left their business cards at the crematory.

As a consumer guided on occasion by said vulture marketing, there is something to be said for not having to make a lot of decisions or do a lot of research during times of great emotional stress.

As a business owner, there is something to be said for being in the right place at the right time.

Still marketing based on divorce just seems icky as shit.

Not sure you can make a DRE complaint because he read the public records but damn…yeah…gross.

On a somewhat related note, I have a client who owns property and is conservator of his deceased mother’s estate. He lives in China. His mail in the US comes to me. When his mother passed, I got like 30 fake greeting cards from agents offering “help” to deal with the house owned by the estate.

Good times.

[urbanrealtor]

Oh.
And a quick word on numbers.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2008/tab21.htm

This is a breakdown of adults on TANF.

White non-hispanics are the largest portion.

This is not true when you factor in children.

When you add in children it tips slightly back toward the black side (like 2% more recipients are black-NH).

Here is the problem with those numbers.
Most hispanics in the US are racially white.

For example me (aka Dan) and Charlie Sheen (real name Carlos Estevez) and Martin Sheen (aka Ramon Estevez) and Carlos Mencia (aka Ned Arnel Holness) along with half of Florida and California (with some Amerindian for the Mestizos).

So if you include people like me, you are back with a white bread majority.

I will be shopping at the Gap in a sombrero if you need me.

[urbanrealtor]

Oh.
And a quick word on numbers.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2008/tab21.htm

This is a breakdown of adults on TANF.

White non-hispanics are the largest portion.

This is not true when you factor in children.

When you add in children it tips slightly back toward the black side (like 2% more recipients are black-NH).

Here is the problem with those numbers.
Most hispanics in the US are racially white.

For example me (aka Dan) and Charlie Sheen (real name Carlos Estevez) and Martin Sheen (aka Ramon Estevez) and Carlos Mencia (aka Ned Arnel Holness) along with half of Florida and California (with some Amerindian for the Mestizos).

So if you include people like me, you are back with a white bread majority.

I will be shopping at the Gap in a sombrero if you need me.

[urbanrealtor]

Oh.
And a quick word on numbers.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2008/tab21.htm

This is a breakdown of adults on TANF.

White non-hispanics are the largest portion.

This is not true when you factor in children.

When you add in children it tips slightly back toward the black side (like 2% more recipients are black-NH).

Here is the problem with those numbers.
Most hispanics in the US are racially white.

For example me (aka Dan) and Charlie Sheen (real name Carlos Estevez) and Martin Sheen (aka Ramon Estevez) and Carlos Mencia (aka Ned Arnel Holness) along with half of Florida and California (with some Amerindian for the Mestizos).

So if you include people like me, you are back with a white bread majority.

I will be shopping at the Gap in a sombrero if you need me.

[urbanrealtor]

Oh.
And a quick word on numbers.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2008/tab21.htm

This is a breakdown of adults on TANF.

White non-hispanics are the largest portion.

This is not true when you factor in children.

When you add in children it tips slightly back toward the black side (like 2% more recipients are black-NH).

Here is the problem with those numbers.
Most hispanics in the US are racially white.

For example me (aka Dan) and Charlie Sheen (real name Carlos Estevez) and Martin Sheen (aka Ramon Estevez) and Carlos Mencia (aka Ned Arnel Holness) along with half of Florida and California (with some Amerindian for the Mestizos).

So if you include people like me, you are back with a white bread majority.

I will be shopping at the Gap in a sombrero if you need me.

[urbanrealtor]

Oh.
And a quick word on numbers.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2008/tab21.htm

This is a breakdown of adults on TANF.

White non-hispanics are the largest portion.

This is not true when you factor in children.

When you add in children it tips slightly back toward the black side (like 2% more recipients are black-NH).

Here is the problem with those numbers.
Most hispanics in the US are racially white.

For example me (aka Dan) and Charlie Sheen (real name Carlos Estevez) and Martin Sheen (aka Ramon Estevez) and Carlos Mencia (aka Ned Arnel Holness) along with half of Florida and California (with some Amerindian for the Mestizos).

So if you include people like me, you are back with a white bread majority.

I will be shopping at the Gap in a sombrero if you need me.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, I fully understand what discrimination is all about. My step-grandfather died in a Nazi jail because he ran the printing press for the underground in Vienna. They also hid Jews in their apartment, and helped transport them over the Swiss border. My Jewish grandfather had already died of TB, which was fortunate, because my mother took her (non-Jewish) step-father’s last name, which probably saved her life.

Still, she was put in a Nazi “re-education” camp for children of uncooperative parents, and was released after a few months only because she tested positive for TB (another blessing in disguise).

Yes, I understand what discrimination means, which is why I think we need to address the causes and start doing something useful to eliminate it or, at the very least, reduce it as much as possible.[/quote]

Demeaning your grandparents and trading on their names does not really change anything.
Kind of makes me sad that the memory of victims of abuse are being misused to save face but that’s not really the point.
The point here is that you are claiming that purely racial considerations are supported by stats and therefore make sense.
To summarize:
People aren’t evil. They just know that black people are more likely to be violent offenders.

I am not sure what is funnier here.
That you are consistently in favor of racial discrimination or that you seek to justify it as if you were the author of Blink.

Life is not a Malcolm Gladwell book.
That is the reason that the “1 in 33 black men” is not considered an acceptable reason to deny business to a patron.

You can talk all day about how its justified but that does not change the reality:

denying business to a someone (like not renting them a room or not selling them coffee) based on race IS DISCRIMINATORY.
BY ITS VERY DEFINITION.
THIS IS TRUE WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS THE BENEFIT OF A LEGAL EXEMPTION.

I personally consider racial discrimination to be immoral and to defend it as being something else is dishonest (or “fraudulent” since you seem to like (mis-)using that word so much).

Having family in the Holocaust does not make you more sensitive.

It just makes you hypocritical.

And denying business based on race is racist.

That’s why we call it that.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, I fully understand what discrimination is all about. My step-grandfather died in a Nazi jail because he ran the printing press for the underground in Vienna. They also hid Jews in their apartment, and helped transport them over the Swiss border. My Jewish grandfather had already died of TB, which was fortunate, because my mother took her (non-Jewish) step-father’s last name, which probably saved her life.

Still, she was put in a Nazi “re-education” camp for children of uncooperative parents, and was released after a few months only because she tested positive for TB (another blessing in disguise).

Yes, I understand what discrimination means, which is why I think we need to address the causes and start doing something useful to eliminate it or, at the very least, reduce it as much as possible.[/quote]

Demeaning your grandparents and trading on their names does not really change anything.
Kind of makes me sad that the memory of victims of abuse are being misused to save face but that’s not really the point.
The point here is that you are claiming that purely racial considerations are supported by stats and therefore make sense.
To summarize:
People aren’t evil. They just know that black people are more likely to be violent offenders.

I am not sure what is funnier here.
That you are consistently in favor of racial discrimination or that you seek to justify it as if you were the author of Blink.

Life is not a Malcolm Gladwell book.
That is the reason that the “1 in 33 black men” is not considered an acceptable reason to deny business to a patron.

You can talk all day about how its justified but that does not change the reality:

denying business to a someone (like not renting them a room or not selling them coffee) based on race IS DISCRIMINATORY.
BY ITS VERY DEFINITION.
THIS IS TRUE WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS THE BENEFIT OF A LEGAL EXEMPTION.

I personally consider racial discrimination to be immoral and to defend it as being something else is dishonest (or “fraudulent” since you seem to like (mis-)using that word so much).

Having family in the Holocaust does not make you more sensitive.

It just makes you hypocritical.

And denying business based on race is racist.

That’s why we call it that.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, I fully understand what discrimination is all about. My step-grandfather died in a Nazi jail because he ran the printing press for the underground in Vienna. They also hid Jews in their apartment, and helped transport them over the Swiss border. My Jewish grandfather had already died of TB, which was fortunate, because my mother took her (non-Jewish) step-father’s last name, which probably saved her life.

Still, she was put in a Nazi “re-education” camp for children of uncooperative parents, and was released after a few months only because she tested positive for TB (another blessing in disguise).

Yes, I understand what discrimination means, which is why I think we need to address the causes and start doing something useful to eliminate it or, at the very least, reduce it as much as possible.[/quote]

Demeaning your grandparents and trading on their names does not really change anything.
Kind of makes me sad that the memory of victims of abuse are being misused to save face but that’s not really the point.
The point here is that you are claiming that purely racial considerations are supported by stats and therefore make sense.
To summarize:
People aren’t evil. They just know that black people are more likely to be violent offenders.

I am not sure what is funnier here.
That you are consistently in favor of racial discrimination or that you seek to justify it as if you were the author of Blink.

Life is not a Malcolm Gladwell book.
That is the reason that the “1 in 33 black men” is not considered an acceptable reason to deny business to a patron.

You can talk all day about how its justified but that does not change the reality:

denying business to a someone (like not renting them a room or not selling them coffee) based on race IS DISCRIMINATORY.
BY ITS VERY DEFINITION.
THIS IS TRUE WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS THE BENEFIT OF A LEGAL EXEMPTION.

I personally consider racial discrimination to be immoral and to defend it as being something else is dishonest (or “fraudulent” since you seem to like (mis-)using that word so much).

Having family in the Holocaust does not make you more sensitive.

It just makes you hypocritical.

And denying business based on race is racist.

That’s why we call it that.

[Author]

Posts